Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “AS’” in paragraph [0071] is not correctly labeled in figure 8. Reference "AC”" in figure 8 should be replaced with “AS’”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “close to each other,” which is a term of degree lacking objective boundaries in the claim and in the specification. Therefore, the scope of claim 10 is not reasonably certain. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al (US 20230209241 A1, hereafter Lo), and further in view of Zhao et al (US 20210281940 A1, hereafter Zhao).
As per claim 1, Lo teaches the following limitations:
“A measuring system, comprising: a first chamber,” HSS of Fig 1;
“… wherein a first cavity exists inside the first chamber,” CB and VL2 of Fig 1;
“… a sound sensing device configured to sense a sound in the first cavity; a sound source configured to generate a sound wave propagating towards the first cavity,” 150 of Fig 8, at para [0090] and [0102];
“… wherein the measuring system is configured to measure a degree of opening,” 120 in Figs 1-5;
“… of a vent formed by a venting device,” at 100(CP) in Figs 1-5;
“… and connected to the first cavity of the first chamber for being measured the degree of opening,” at 100(CP) in Figs 1-5;
“… the first cavity of the first chamber is between the venting device and the sound sensing device,” VL1 and 150 in Figs 1 and 8.
and the degree of opening is obtained according to a result generated by the sound sensing device.”, at para [0083-84]; 130T in Fig 4.
Lo does not teach the top cover.
However, Zhao does teach the following:
“a top cover disposed on the first chamber,” cover 124 in Fig 1B;
“… wherein the venting device is disposed between the first chamber and the top cover,” Piezoelectric actuators 114, Rear cavity 152, and cover 124 in Fig 1B;
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lo with Zhao’s top cover in order to protect the transducer section from liquid and particle ingress, at para [0026].
As per claim 2, Lo teaches the following limitations:
“The measuring system of claim 1, wherein the venting device has a first mode and a second mode, the vent of the venting device in the first mode has a first size, the vent of the venting device in the second mode has a second size, and the first size is different from the second size.”, at para [0051].
As per claim 7, Zhao teaches the following:
“The measuring system of claim 1, wherein the top cover has an air channel connected to the first cavity of the first chamber through the venting device.”, aperture 140 in Fig 1A.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lo with Zhao’s air channel so the sound can flow more freely through the system.
As per claim 8, Zhao teaches the following:
“The measuring system of claim 7, wherein the first cavity of the first chamber is connected to an outer space of the measuring system through the air channel and the venting device.”, aperture 140 in Fig 1A.
Outer space can be referred to as the outside. Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lo with Zhao’s outer space so the sound from the outside can flow through the system unimpeded.
As per claim 10, Zhao teaches the following:
“The measuring system of claim 1, further comprising a position changing structure configured to bring the first chamber and the top cover close to each other.” at para [0028].
As per claim 11, Lo teaches the following:
“The measuring system of claim 1, further comprising a mode changing device configured to control a mode of the venting device.”, at para [0051] actuator 120 in Figs 3-5;
As per claim 12, Lo teaches the following:
“The measuring system of claim 1, further comprising a signal processing device electrically connected to the sound sensing device, wherein the signal processing device is configured to receive and analyze a sensing signal generated by the sound sensing device.”, at para [0091].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo as applied to claim 1, above in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Van ’T Hof et al (US 20200352788 A1, hereafter Van).
As per claim 5, Lo in view of Zhao does not teach the venting device disposed between the chamber and the sound source.
However, Van teaches:
“The measuring system of claim 1, wherein the venting device,” 12a in Fig 3A;
“… is disposed between the first chamber,”12 in Fig 3A;
“… and the sound source.”, S0 in Fig 3A.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lo and Zhao with Van’s venting device placement in order to determine acoustic sound resistance for the sound received and transmitted through the first chamber, at para [0035].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo as applied to claim 1, above in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Deng et al (CN 115243178 A, hereafter Deng).
As per claim 13, Lo and Zhao do not teach a tubular structure.
However, Deng teaches the following:
“The measuring system of claim 1, wherein the first chamber is a tubular structure.”, at para 8 of Specific implementation examples section.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lo and Zhao with Deng’s cylinder shape, at para 8.
Claims 14, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al (US 20230209241 A1, hereafter Lo), and further in view of Zhao et al (US 20210281940 A1, hereafter Zhao).
As per claim 14, Lo teaches the following limitations:
“A measuring method, comprising: providing a measuring system, wherein the measuring system comprises: a first chamber,”, HSS of Fig 1;
“… wherein a first cavity exists inside the first chamber,” CB and VL2 of Fig 1;
“…a sound source configured to generate a sound wave propagating towards the first cavity,” 150 of Fig 8, at para [0090] and [0102];
“… sensing a first sound in the first cavity of the first chamber when generating the sound wave by the sound source,”
“…wherein a first degree of opening of a vent formed by the venting device is obtained according to a first result related to the first sound.”
Lo does not teach the top cover.
However, Zhao does teach the following:
“a top cover disposed on the first chamber,” cover 124 in Fig 1B;
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lo with Zhao’s top cover in order to protect the transducer section from liquid and particle ingress, at para [0026].
Lo does not teach the venting device between the first chamber and the top cover.
However, Zhao does teach the following:
“… and performing a first measuring process on a venting device, wherein the first measuring process comprises: disposing the venting device between the first chamber and the top cover,”, piezoelectric actuators 114, Rear cavity 152, and cover 124 in Fig 1B;
As per claims 17 and 18, Lo teaches the measuring method with the venting device performing different modes, at para [0051].
As per claim 19, Lo teaches the following:
“The measuring method of claim 14, wherein the measuring system further comprises a sound sensing device configured to sense the first sound.”, 150 of Fig 8, at para [0090] and [0102].
As per claim 20, Lo teaches the testing method of a venting device; obtaining different results corresponding to each mode, at para [0069-70].
As per claim 21, Lo teaches a third result corresponding with the third mode, at para [0069-70].
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo as applied to claim 14, above in view of Zhao as applied to claim 14, and in further view of Tumpold et al (US 20190181776 A1, hereafter Tumpold).
As per claim 15 and 16, Lo and Zhao teach the measuring method on a device that is similar based on claim 1.
Lo and Zhao do not teach a reference device that requires a fully sealed device.
However, Tumpold teaches a mechanism where the acoustic valves open and close, at para [0046].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lo and Zhao with Tumpold’s closing valve (114 acoustic valve in Fig 3A) in order to measure the difference of acoustic impedance, at para [0042].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 3, Lo does not teach a sound sensing device facing the venting device; sound sensing device 150, venting device 100, Fig 8.
As per claim 4, Lo does not teach the sound source that is disposed between the venting device and the sound sensing device; sound source SPK1 and SPK2, sound sensing device 150, venting device 100, Fig 8.
As per claim 6, Lo and Zhao do not teach a second chamber.
As per claim 9, Zhao teaches a top cover.
However, Zhao do not teach the following limitations:
“The measuring system of claim 1, wherein the top cover comprises a conductive structure electrically connected to the venting device.”, cover 124 in Fig 1B;
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tessalie A. Caze-Cortes whose telephone number is (571)270-3235. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am to 4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TESSALIE A. CAZE-CORTES/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights